DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Universal has now provided us with the highres artwork for the 1-disc release

Further Details:
Universal has announced 1-disc ($29.98), 3-disc ($34.98) and Blu-ray ($39.98) editions of The Incredible Hulk which stars Edward Norton. The only extra material on the 1-disc will be a commentary with Director Louis Leterrier and Tim Roth, and deleted scenes. The 3-disc will include all that, along with featurettes (The Making of Incredible, Becoming The Hulk, Becoming The Abomination, Anatomy of a Hulk Out, From Comic Book to Screen), additional deleted scenes, an alternate opening, and a digital copy of the film. The Blu-ray edition will include all of the above, plus U Control features (Thunderbolt Files, Scene Explorer, Comic Book Gallery, Animated Comic, Picture in Picture). We've attached the artwork below:

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

me thinks that they are holding back the REAL art for the extended cut in the US but we will never know.

could you imagine if they released the extended cut as a 1 disker and as so that the digital copy could be tossed to the side and the extended cut put in its place? i hate it when i think about this too much

I strongly prefer the 1-disc artwork more. The 3-disc artwork is cheesy but not the worst. But like the above comments said the artwork with the Hulk standing behind Edward Norton would have made a great DVD artwork for the 3-disc and then keep the 1-disc artwork. That way everyone could get what they want.

Bouncy X wrote: lee09 wrote: 133 Million smash! Thats hilarious. The Ang Lee version did almost 'exactly' the same as this remake. Univeral you shamed yourself here, and this coming from an avid fan of the studio. Terrible move!

yeah but the difference is the 03 Hulk cost well over 100 million to make while this new one cost somewhere in the 70-80 million range if i remember right, if im wrong and forget what i say here lol. so while its still not a HUGE hit but its still a decent profit compared to the other.

no actually you are rather wrong. the incredible hulk had a budget of $150 million, 70-80 million? no one is going to buy that, considering that CGI work is hell of money to show off. the 2003 version had a budget of $137 million, so considering the old one did a little better and its infact the best Hulk for me. Louis Leterrier is a lousy director.

i HATE but with a passion the 3-Disc cover art, its overly animated, it infact looks Video Game-ish. the single disc cover is outstanding!

Actually, this one, IMO, was a smash for the fact that it did better than expected by the studio heads after the bomb which was the 2003 version. I'll get the 1-disc as I never seem to watch the special features. Also, I've noticed the '03 version in the five dollar bin at wal-mart, so, I might pick it up on my way out the door one day.

Bouncy X wrote: lee09 wrote: 133 Million smash! Thats hilarious. The Ang Lee version did almost 'exactly' the same as this remake. Univeral you shamed yourself here, and this coming from an avid fan of the studio. Terrible move! yeah but the difference is the 03 Hulk cost well over 100 million to make while this new one cost somewhere in the 70-80 million range if i remember right, if im wrong and forget what i say here lol. so while its still not a HUGE hit but its still a decent profit compared to the other. Actually, I believe they both had a budget of about $130 mil. Couldn't find anything to back that except the info on box office mojo, but they're usually pretty good. It looks like they both performed about the same. Strange they would consider one a "Smash Hit" and the other a bust.

lee09 wrote: 133 Million smash! Thats hilarious. The Ang Lee version did almost 'exactly' the same as this remake. Univeral you shamed yourself here, and this coming from an avid fan of the studio. Terrible move!

yeah but the difference is the 03 Hulk cost well over 100 million to make while this new one cost somewhere in the 70-80 million range if i remember right, if im wrong and forget what i say here lol. so while its still not a HUGE hit but its still a decent profit compared to the other.

david white wrote: here is my one and only thing about the digital copy BS its not as bad as everyone is making them BUT i see no point in making a second disk all together for something which could easily fit on a standard CD! i mean really now if dvd9s house 8.5GB added the fact that most if not all computers these days have dvd drives then why have a disk devoted to that feature alone!

anyhow i hope that wasn't too bad of a rant.

besides what is the harm in making the disk which houses the DC in one of the paper disk sleeves or in a separate case all together like you see the sets in wal*mart.

also, they could just add extras onto the digital copy like Die Hard 4 did and problem solved. most people, myself inclued, complain about digital copies because they put them on a seperate disc and advertise it as a 2-3 disc collection. if they all followed the Die Hard 4 pattern i doubt anybody would care.

but yeah, its nice to see the confirmation that disc 3 is indeed just a digital copy in this case. what a crock. lol

here is my one and only thing about the digital copy BS its not as bad as everyone is making them BUT i see no point in making a second disk all together for something which could easily fit on a standard CD! i mean really now if dvd9s house 8.5GB added the fact that most if not all computers these days have dvd drives then why have a disk devoted to that feature alone!

anyhow i hope that wasn't too bad of a rant.

besides what is the harm in making the disk which houses the DC in one of the paper disk sleeves or in a separate case all together like you see the sets in wal*mart.

liono86 wrote: I totally DISAGREE. Now I agree with the whole Hulk smash, b/c, it had a lot of good action in it. But, there def. was interesting character moments. Especially between the Hulk and Betty. I think their chemistry was a whole lot better than that of Bana and Connelly. I especially like the whole part with the Hulk taking Betty off into the wilderness under that cave. It gave the Hulk a very human appeal to him and the closeness him and Betty had. Also, the general was way more bad arse than the Sam Elliot version. This was a way better Hulk than the 2003. Still, Wal-Mart carries the 2003 version in the five dollar bin, so, I might pick it up on my way off of work there one day. Take another look Liono

I pretty much disagree with everything you just said. Sam Elliott was waay better in the role of Thunderbolt Ross. And I thought Liv Tyler was horrible. I was bored thru almost the entire movie, except for the Abomination battle. Overall I felt it was a bad script that was poorly acted all around. Ang Lee's version was a better "movie" on almost every level.

i can't speak for anyone else obviously but personally i just dont get their point. i just dont understand why anyone would want to watch a movie on anything smaller than a television. especially something as small as an Ipod/mp3 player. i realize this is the age where many people watch movies on their PC's and stuff but even that i dont get. sure not everyone has a huge 78 inch widescreen tv but even a 21inch tube tv is MILES better than some pc monitor or mp3 player or whatever.

but again, that's just MY opinion. if the keep making these digital copies, it must be because some people want em.

thus my rant ends. lol

What I hate about them, single disc has the movie and maybe one feature, then they have the 2 disc edition, Disc one same movie and now 10 features, 2nd disc, c**ppy digital download, NO features. SO they could have fut all those features in the one disc edition and gotten rid of the 2 disc. I hate paying for hat extra disc of nothing I am never going to use.

"Did away with all of the interesting character moments from the first film and went down the 'Hulk smash!' route. Boring. Ropey acting as well. Perhaps if it turns out to be the rumoured 'Ed Norton' cut it will be better."

I totally DISAGREE. Now I agree with the whole Hulk smash, b/c, it had a lot of good action in it. But, there def. was interesting character moments. Especially between the Hulk and Betty. I think their chemistry was a whole lot better than that of Bana and Connelly. I especially like the whole part with the Hulk taking Betty off into the wilderness under that cave. It gave the Hulk a very human appeal to him and the closeness him and Betty had. Also, the general was way more bad arse than the Sam Elliot version. This was a way better Hulk than the 2003. Still, Wal-Mart carries the 2003 version in the five dollar bin, so, I might pick it up on my way off of work there one day.

Bouncy X wrote: kingdbz93 wrote: Now I can understand the convenience of a digital copy on the Blu-Ray edition (for, me I don't have a Blu-Ray drive on my computer, and one reason I was skeptical to start a Blu-Ray collection was because I would be limited to just watching the movies in my living room, but with the digital copy i could watch it on the computer in my room as well) but for a regular DVD it seems pointless.

the digital copies are just standard def, regardless if you're buying the blu-ray version of the movie or not. kinda stupid if you ask me but i'm also one of those people who think the concept of digital copies themselves are stupid so. lol

I know the digital copies are standard def regardless, I was saying having a digital copy on the standard DVD is pretty pointless considering ever computer has a DVD drive. I was saying it makes sense having a digital copy on the Blu-Ray since most people dont have a Blu-Ray drive on their PC yet. Yeah i understand why most people see no point in digital copies, but i stated my reason for liking them above.

i can't speak for anyone else obviously but personally i just dont get their point. i just dont understand why anyone would want to watch a movie on anything smaller than a television. especially something as small as an Ipod/mp3 player. i realize this is the age where many people watch movies on their PC's and stuff but even that i dont get. sure not everyone has a huge 78 inch widescreen tv but even a 21inch tube tv is MILES better than some pc monitor or mp3 player or whatever.

but again, that's just MY opinion. if the keep making these digital copies, it must be because some people want em.

Leterrier said there probably wouldn't be any real extended cut (the theatrical one is the producers', not Norton's, nor Leterrier's). So don't expect the famous 28' long final battle the Amadeus Cho scenes or the extented scenes with Doc. Samson IN the movie to much. Hopefully, the Cap America scene might be added (The Arctic alternate opening). A new cut wouln'd be so hard to do, considering it already exist (Armstrong even had finished the final music score)... Wait and see, I gess ! Ho, and, by the way: respecting the opinions and taste of others could be nice, from time to time STOP SAYING SOMEONE IS A D....S BECAUSE HE LIKES SOMETHING YOU DON'T, otherwise don't expect others to respect YOUR opinion either !

got the info- updated The Incredible Hulk Release Date- October 21 2008 single disc-unknown features

three disc-possibly 70 minutes of deleted scenes, alternate opening, digital copy, audio commentary, from comic book to screen, becoming the abomination, hulking out on campus, hulking out in the botling plant, hulking out in harlem, becoming the hulk, other features unknown

Blu-Ray-70 minutes of deleted scenes, alternate opening, collectible 3D packaging, BD live features, audio commentary, from comic book to screen, becoming the abomination, becoming the hulk, hulking out in the botling plant, hulking out in harlem, hulking out on campus, other features unknown

Why are people hating the digital Copies so much i think they are good especaily with foxes version that works with itunes it gives you a simple quick way of geting a movie on to your ipod i do use rippers but having to code it right and having to worry about weather or not some movies sync up right and all its a pain in the neck to deal with some times.

but yeah This movie was Great i will deffintly buy it way better than the other version

They use digital copies as a way not to pay to download it off of iTunes or Netflix or Movielink. Some people use it, not lots of people. Just some. But if you want to stand uncorrected, I'll said it's just a excuse to label it a 2 or 3-disc special edition for no reason at all.

Vin wrote: Right, will the 70 extra minutes be seamlessly inserted into the movie on the BR version, or is it just 70 minutes worth of deleted scenes? Looks like all the deleted scenes including the alternate opening (which should be the Antartica opening) will be seperate I think :\

kingdbz93 wrote: Now I can understand the convenience of a digital copy on the Blu-Ray edition (for, me I don't have a Blu-Ray drive on my computer, and one reason I was skeptical to start a Blu-Ray collection was because I would be limited to just watching the movies in my living room, but with the digital copy i could watch it on the computer in my room as well) but for a regular DVD it seems pointless.

the digital copies are just standard def, regardless if you're buying the blu-ray version of the movie or not. kinda stupid if you ask me but i'm also one of those people who think the concept of digital copies themselves are stupid so. lol

you might think a 3 disc version is a little overboard but its a 3 disc not a 2 disc because when the movie came out Leterrier said not sure if he was gonna put althe deleted scenes on the 2 disc because it would be too much for one or two discs with the other features so he probally decided to make a 3 disc not a 2 disc so he can put all 70 minutes on the dvd without taking out anyother planned features.

got the info- The Incredible Hulk release date-October 21 2008 single disc- unknown features three disc- probally 70 minutes of addinitional scenes, digital copy, other features unknown Blu-Ray- 70 minutes of addintional scenes, other features unknown

Now I can understand the convenience of a digital copy on the Blu-Ray edition (for, me I don't have a Blu-Ray drive on my computer, and one reason I was skeptical to start a Blu-Ray collection was because I would be limited to just watching the movies in my living room, but with the digital copy i could watch it on the computer in my room as well) but for a regular DVD it seems pointless.

I liked the movie, more so than Ang Lee's version, but I was still surprised at how apparently difficult it is to make an extremely good "Hulk" movie. I really enjoyed the first half of "The Incredible Hulk" but once we meet that strange doctor (Mr. Blue) the film went downhill from there and for me at least, didn't recover until the very end (the second to the last sequence and the last sequence with Tony Stark). I've heard the DVD release to be 10/21 but that is tentative and is already a busy day DVD-release wise. I hope the 3-Disc Set is a true 3-Discer and doesn't come with a beyond-pointless digital copy. The director has said that he would put as many of the deleted scenes on the regular DVD as would fit and depending on how many discs it was so hopefully that lends some evidence that it could be a legit 3-Disc Set. The artwork isn't the greatest - way too on the nose. For Special Edition DVD covers, less is more.

Hopefully they do happen to change the boxart like they did with the Fountain. The color in this is horrible too, mixing green with purple? MEH and hopefully we do get a 3 hour cut, it's the only way for a good sequel and for Norton to return.

harlandarlin wrote: THis movie didn't nail it! It had more action and Ed Norton ws great, but the script should have dove deeper like " Dark Knight" Now dark Knight is a film I saw on opening weekend and it still rings true. I'll never forget it and I want to see again and agin. The Incredible Hulk had a few cool action scenes , but it was dumbed down. Ang lee made a much better film in terms of story, but it lacked action. Everyone lieks to say how bad Ang's film is and trash for teh simple fact that it lacks action. Look beyond that and it's really an artsy and well done film. The more I watch it, the more I love it. A lot of people wrote "Unbreakable" off the same way. But that is also a great film just cause something doesn't move at the speed of M-Tv or a video game doesn't mean it's always trash. I will likely get this film on DVD simply cause I am a hulk fan and i want to see what scenes they stupidly left out. Make mine Ang lee. I hope if there is a next film it will have Angs Story strength and this films action. Check out my blog...http://anghulkmovie.blogspot.com/

And why is Ed Norton not on the cover???

Oh please. Both 'Unbreakable' and Ang Lee's 'Hulk' are the cinematic equivalent of a steaming pile of horse feces.

THis movie didn't nail it! It had more action and Ed Norton ws great, but the script should have dove deeper like " Dark Knight" Now dark Knight is a film I saw on opening weekend and it still rings true. I'll never forget it and I want to see again and agin. The Incredible Hulk had a few cool action scenes , but it was dumbed down. Ang lee made a much better film in terms of story, but it lacked action. Everyone lieks to say how bad Ang's film is and trash for teh simple fact that it lacks action. Look beyond that and it's really an artsy and well done film. The more I watch it, the more I love it. A lot of people wrote "Unbreakable" off the same way. But that is also a great film just cause something doesn't move at the speed of M-Tv or a video game doesn't mean it's always trash. I will likely get this film on DVD simply cause I am a hulk fan and i want to see what scenes they stupidly left out. Make mine Ang lee. I hope if there is a next film it will have Angs Story strength and this films action. Check out my blog...http://anghulkmovie.blogspot.com/

Yeah, that cover art sucks. Looks real kiddie as opposed to the much better theatrical poster with the full body shot of Ed Norton and the Hulk's massive frame in the background. Knowing the trend these days, the 3rd disc is probably a lame digital copy of the film.

If I had to choose between this film and Ang Lee's I would have to pick the latter. Lee's film was the introspective Hulk but it was much more engaging and visually superior. However, if you're looking for just "HULK SMASH" then this film is fine enough and enjoyable on only that level really. Unless Norton's longer cut is on this release and proves to be much better. Either way I will be getting this 3-Disc edition and I actually think the artwork is just fine.

Here's to hoping that somewhere among these three discs an extended cut is included. The main problem with this movie was that it seemed to try too hard to make up for the first film being so slow and cerebral (don't get me wrong, I liked the first film very much) by making it TOO fast, TOO action-oriented, and sans a whole lot of character development.

I'm hoping an extended cut would go some lengths to solve this problem.

The movie from 2003 also get besides the 2 disc SE,a 3 disc LE. Disc 3 with that Le get a 45 minute making off future.

If it going to be a good 3 disc SE and avaible in my country too,together with Hulk from 2003 and the future Casino Royale 2006 - 3 disc CE (I hope for R2 there change it in a 4 disc CE and at the single of you know my name as disc 4.) it going to be my fourth 3 disc,because i also own the 3 disc LE of Mission Impossible 3.

Yea Ed and Liv weren't really that good, altho they're both good actors.... i hope there is an extended cut cuz this movie and the ang lee version didn't really do it for me. story or characters werent too engaging....

LEOohhyeaah wrote: I was actually really entertained by this. Edward Norton was great. Liv Tyler was great. A must buy... for me at least. Great artwork also.

I'm sorry. I couldn't let the "Live Tyler was great" comment go. I found her performance to be terrible. Jen Connelly was waaay better. Overall, I thought this movie was poorly acted and a step back from the original. I'll wait for the bargain bin.

The television series and the 2003 film blew huge chunks, but I found the sequel (don't bother correcting me, the film references events in the 2003 film) more accessible and enjoyable. It was missing some of the character moments that made the first flick bearable, but it moved at a more fast pace and Tim Roth was a way better villain than Nick Nolte's.

I'd be happy just to see a single-disc edition with commentary (preferrably with Leterrier's/Norton's cut) and that deleted Captain America scene Leterrier was talking about. A three-disc edition (particularly with a digital copy) is overkill for this flick.

If there's a movie that deserved a 3-disc set, it's THE DARK KNIGHT or IRON MAN. Not this film.

This was just fun. It was an entertaining summer ride that beyond everything else had the Hulk having a good ol' down and dirty fight which superhero movies tend to underplay. It wasn't as personal as the Ang Lee one and certainly didn't do anything new with the franchise, but I'll be getting it as it was a blast. (Please, Please, please innclude the Ed Norton cut!)

the fact that articles refers to it as "cut footage" seems to give the impression it wont necessarily be a longer cut of the movie, but just the cut footage available on disc, like as deleted scenes or something.

Fans hoping for an even bigger 'Incredible Hulk' need only wait for the upcoming Blu-ray release, which according to the film's director will come with over an hour of cut footage.

In a recent interview with Collider, 'Incredible Hulk' helmer Louis Leterrier revealed that the planned Blu-ray release of the film (which is due to open this Friday) will include no less than 70 minutes of material excised from the theatrical cut. ADVERTISEMENT

"I want to put [on the Blu-ray] everything we shot," said Leterrier. "I'm not the kind of guy that likes to keep the stuff for myself. In the 70 minutes, there's some great stuff and there's some really horrible stuff, but you'll see it all."

As has been widely publicized, those close to the production have speculated that Leterrier and 'Hulk' star Edward Norton had a famous falling out over the edits made to the movie, which now runs 114 minutes. We'll certainly be looking forward to having all our questions answered by the eventual Blu-ray release.

Though any potential street date for 'The Incredible Hulk' is still far from being announced by Universal, as always, we'll keep you posted on the release as soon as more news comes to us. Stay tuned!

i know it was a premature post 2 months ago but thought i would chip in

Agree with SeeWalk on the cover/poster. I might be tempted if there is the extended cut on blu-ray...otherwise, I will wait for the extended cut to be released, or for this to drop well below the $15 pricetag.

As much as I love the regular poster, I actually really like that cover too. And I also really hope that the release has the extended cut, but since its not advertised on there, I doubt it does. Then again, it says nothing about a digital copy either, and they usually make damn sure that the cover tells you about it. I'm really curious to see what exactly is on these 3 discs.

while i hope you're right, considering how close that date is and there's no spec info or official announcement yet, it doesnt seem likely. though if there's already a cover, maybe the rest will come this week or next.

either way, i enjoyed this very much...over the top cartoony violence is what Hulk shoulda been the first time around. although i'm not one of those 2003 haters, i like the first one too but yeah...this was more up my alley.

and you gotta love the use of the "hulk smash" line....it reminded me of the "i am megatron" line from transformers...they were both so cheesy beyond words and yet so cool at the same time. lol

horrorfan25 wrote: 3-disc? Like other comments that's going WAY over-board. If someone gets the 3-disc treatment it should be 'The dark knight'. I just hope the extras are good. BTW the film is coming out September 16, 2008. Also it would be cool if they threw in the 3 hour movie.

If that release date is true, then Septemeber sure is gonna be a hell of a lot more expensive for me this year than last year. This year, we got Speed Racer, Iron Man, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and now THIS.

I enjoyed this Hulk version a lot so I'll definitely buying it, but like others said, the 3-disc is a bit much.

3-disc? Like other comments that's going WAY over-board. If someone gets the 3-disc treatment it should be 'The dark knight'. I just hope the extras are good. BTW the film is coming out September 16, 2008. Also it would be cool if they threw in the 3 hour movie.

Did away with all of the interesting character moments from the first film and went down the 'Hulk smash!' route. Boring. Ropey acting as well. Perhaps if it turns out to be the rumoured 'Ed Norton' cut it will be better.

I will for sure get this one hope the bluray art is better the dvd art is a bit lame and cartoonish As for the movie it self i kind of liked it way better than the 2003 version effects where good and the hulk look good also cant wait to c it in high def

This movie was about 2000 times better than that boring, god-awful 2003 version. This had all the action the other was sorely lacking and it moved along at a good pace. This one nailed it where the first one didn't. Good stuff. A definite buy.

Just like the 3 disc version of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Universal Studios will only release the 1 and 3 disc version. So that the only way to get some special features is to pay more and get a wasted third disc. When will the digital copy madness stop ?